WILL THE CZECHS AND POLES BE NEXT TO SAY 'NO'? THE TIMES, LONDON: 'Pressure On Czechs And Poles Not To Say ‘No’ To EU Treaty Too'
james.m...@live.com
by David Sharrock and David Charter
The Times, UK,
June 19, 2008
Fears that Eastern European countries are preparing to follow
Ireland’s rejection of the Lisbon treaty have increased tensions
before today’s Brussels summit, where EU leaders hope to rescue the
document — or at least keep it alive.
The Continent’s leaders are refusing to accept that the treaty is
dead, despite the dramatic Irish referendum rejection last week, and
are determined to persuade the Czechs and the Poles, seen as the two
most likely to suspend ratification, to complete the process.
The treaty, designed to streamline the EU machine by removing national
vetoes, cutting back commissioners and creating a president of the
European Council, cannot pass unless all 27 EU countries ratify it.
Brian Cowen, the Irish Prime Minister, will face his 26 fellow leaders
at the opening dinner tonight, most of them desperate to hear him say
one thing: that Ireland will try a second referendum early next year.
But he is expected to avoid making this commitment because he has not
yet worked out what the EU can offer Ireland to persuade voters to
change their minds; it is not even clear that he believes a rerun is
winnable. Mr Cowen is expected to adopt a holding pattern, emphasising
that a route out of the impasse is months away.
Irish officials appear stumped for a solution but are taking comfort
from the sympathetic response received by Micheal Martin, the Foreign
Minister, at an EU meeting on Monday. EU diplomats are suggesting that
Ireland could be offered clear protocols guaranteeing its military
neutrality and its distinctive social legislation on matters such as
abortion, as well as the right to set its own tax levels.
But despite featuring in the referendum debate, none of these measures
was threatened by the treaty and the Government might need more
concessions, such as a guarantee that it will not lose its
commissioner when they are trimmed from 27 to 18.
The January 1 target for implementing the treaty has clearly been lost
and there is a growing belief in Dublin that the real deadline for
action may be pushed back to next June, to coincide with the European
Parliament elections, or October, when a new European Commission is
appointed.
Britain is among a number of countries arguing that Ireland cannot be
forced to try a second referendum, because a second defeat would be a
calamity.
Yesterday José Manuel Barroso, the European Commission President,
joined those urging the remaining eight countries to complete their
ratifications of the treaty this year.
In Poland, the document has cleared parliament but is awaiting the
signature of President Kaczynski, a Eurosceptic, and he could well
decide to hold off until it is clearer whether the treaty can be saved
in Ireland.
In the Czech Republic, there is a constitutional court challenge and
President Klaus has pronounced the treaty dead. The Government has yet
to give a clear statement of its intentions.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4167681.ece
james.m...@live.com
Czechs Heading To EU Summit As Ireland's Advocates
'Don't Put Any Pressure On ANYBODY': Czechs Heading To EU Summit As
Ireland's Advocates
Deutsche Presse-Agentur,
via monstersandcritics.com,
Jun 18, 2008.,
Prague - The Czech Republic is heading to an upcoming EU summit
starting in Brussels Thursday as an advocate for Ireland, whose voters
rejected the so-called Lisbon Treaty meant to reform institutions of
the 27-member European Union.
'The proposal is clear. Don't put any pressure on anybody,' Czech
Deputy Prime Minister for European Affairs Alexandr Vondra told
reporters Wednesday.
'We do not want to follow the prescription of some who want to corner
Ireland.'
Since the Irish referendum, the Czech eurosceptic centre-right
government has avoided giving a clear stance on the future of the
pact's ratification process.
Vondra said it would have been wrong to say whether the country would
proceed with the ratification, as the charter is currently under
review of the country's Constitutional Court.
'The ratification process in parliament is interrupted,' he said. 'We
have to wait. It is (in) a parking lot.'
The government has been cautious in comparison to President Vaclav
Klaus who repeated Wednesday that the Irish no vote has finished off
the charter.
'I do not understand the British parliament if it votes about it,'
Klaus told reporters in reference to Britain's decision to continue
with the ratification.
But Vondra suggested that Prague may not bury the treaty. 'We do not
say no,' he said in reference to ratification.
james.m...@live.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Czechs Put Ratifying Of EU Treaty On Hold
By James Kirkup and Bruno Waterfield in Brussels.
Daily Telegraph, UK,
19 June, 2008.
The Lisbon Treaty suffered a fresh blow on Wednesday as the Czech
Republic suspended ratification after last week's Irish referendum
defeat.
The Czech move put pressure on Gordon Brown to declare the treaty
dead, even as he pushed ahead with moves for Britain to ratify it.
The Government defeated a Conservative attempt to delay British
ratification in the House of Lords and a bill to ratify the treaty got
its third reading by 277 votes to 184.
The treaty cannot take force until all EU states approve it and there
are signs that the Irish government will come under pressure to call a
second referendum.
Mirek Topolánek, the Czech prime minister, who confirmed his country
will put ratification on hold while the Czech Constitutional Court
decides if approving the text is legal, said: "The Irish 'no' is not
of a lesser impact for us than the French and Dutch 'no'."
William Hague, the shadow foreign secretary, called on Mr Brown to
follow the Czech example: "Mirek Topolánek is absolutely right. A
country cannot be ignored by Brussels just because it's small."
"It would be … the height of arrogance for Gordon Brown to bully the
Irish into voting twice before the British people are allowed to vote
once."
james.m...@live.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Our EU Masters Have No Sense Of Shame
By Iain Martin.
Daily Telefraph, UK,
19/06/2008
Guinness and oysters combined can make for a dreadful hangover.
Celebrating the Irish way, after the good citizens of the republic had
bravely rejected Lisbon and all its works, seemed like a good idea at
the time. But after the party that followed such a rare piece of good
news for Euro-sceptics, comes the blistering hangover.
Why can those involved not see that the Euro-project lacks any popular
mandate?
Irish voters may have thought they had killed the treaty, but, in the
European Union, no never quite means no; or rather no seems not to
matter. And, our peers also bulldozed it through the Lords.
There has been something staggering and infuriating about the events
of the past few days. The response to the latest setback has been so
brazen from the European elite that wants full integration, it proves
those involved have passed beyond a point where they might feel the
slightest embarrassment about appearing not to be good democrats. In
reality, they are now actively anti-democratic in pursuit of their
master plan, revelling in a refusal to acknowledge that voters might
be anything other than sheep needing to be led in the right direction.
The word is that Ireland's veto is not worth the same as a French veto
of the previous constitution, and that the Irish are being given time
to reflect.
The sense is that Irish voters, bless them, are the most simple of
souls, appearing not to know what they were up to when they voted.
Their bog-ridden land was rescued from the economic dark ages by the
EU, and Dublin, previously a cultural backwater peopled by pygmies
such as James Joyce, was only turned into a great European city when
the EU, or EEC, pitched up.
The implication is appalling: Ireland's economic revival had nothing
to do with Irish ingenuity and the nation's celebrated creativity. In
that insult is one flickering hope: few peoples like and vote for
being told they are stupid.
The Irish have been thoroughly insulted. On hearing of the death of a
Turkish ambassador, Talleyrand is supposed to have said: "I wonder
what he meant by that?" And so it has been with the Lisbon Treaty. The
Irish voted no, but the Eurocrats ask: What did they mean by that? In
this case, it appears that they meant they did not relish the
centralising aspects of Lisbon.
The realisation that the Euromaniacs would try to plough ahead, by
bullying the Irish, produced a feeling on the part of many sceptics of
hopelessness and ennui. Admittedly the celebratory Guinness might well
have been a contributing factor, but it is clear that the large
European powers have decided that Ireland, and the rest of us, can be
railroaded. Protesters demanding a referendum were dragged from the
gallery of the Lords as Europhiles such as Lord Kinnock rammed the
treaty through the Upper Chamber.
Impotent rage is an understandable reaction. Why can those involved
not see that their project lacks any popular mandate and is driven by
an elitist contempt for opinion across Europe? On and on drives the
ratification of Lisbon, and yet there is nothing to be done.
But the situation is not hopeless in Britain. The polls are quite
clear: the most recent YouGov survey, conducted for Open Europe this
week, showed that just 14 per cent of those polled think our
Government should continue ratifying Lisbon. Only 29 per cent of those
polled want to continue our current relationship with Europe, while 38
per cent want to stay in the single market but withdraw from the other
political aspects of the EU. Almost a quarter want to withdraw
completely.
So, while the sense that resistance is futile may prevail, there is
also a natural coalition of 62 per cent that wants to withdraw or
remodel our relationship with Europe. Rather than getting angry about
Lisbon, those of us who want a different kind of Europe should work
out ways to get even.
The Government is deaf to this, as it long ago lost a sense of
national sovereignty, and there is a danger that the next one (likely
to be led by David Cameron) will be equally hard of hearing for
different reasons.
Already Cameroons, Euro-sceptic by nature, shake their heads and say
that this is all very difficult indeed, old chap, and, what kind of
lunatic would want Europe to wreck his first term? A renegotiation of
our terms with our partners might have to "wait for a second term,
perhaps". This is an opposition's kiss of death, with "second term"
meaning never and "perhaps" meaning perhaps not. If Britain is to
shake this curse, pressure must be applied to a wobbly Tory
leadership.
Global Vision, a think tank, is handily mapping a path out of this
mess for Britain and the Conservative Party, but it needs support.
Look at the polls: it is no use screaming that we must get out of
Europe completely when the future of the Euro-sceptic argument centres
clearly on crafting a calm, clear message to our European partners
that, while we want to trade and co-operate, we do not want
integration. Tory ministers will have to fly to Brussels on day one to
open negotiations.
The European model is propelled by two forces: a sense of Marxist
historical inevitability, when in reality we can stop whatever we
choose; and an idea that the project embodies modernity.
The first prop can be knocked away by painstaking argument, the second
now looks out of date. It is the EU that is out of fashion and reeks
of the 1970s. The trend in economics and social policy, as evidenced
by the rise of the internet and consumerism, is running in the
direction of less central control, not more. To compete in the 21st-
century, Britain will have to be fleet of foot and not shackled to a
distant 20th-century bureaucracy.
The Irish cheered us Euro-sceptics up for a few days, but be certain
they will be swept aside. What is required is a hard-headed, decade-
long drive to start our disengagement from this mad process. It will
require hard pounding, and pressure on a Conservative leadership that
is nervous. But there is no other way if we want to govern ourselves.
The Irish said stop; we need to find our reverse gear.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/06/19/do1904.xml
james.m...@live.com
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Czechs Against EU Treaty Further Rratification: Foreign Minister
Ceskenoviny.cz,
19 June, 2008.
Vienna- The Czech Republic will not support further ratification of
the Lisbon treaty if the current EU summit in Brussels proposes a
resolution saying the ratification should go on, Czech Foreign
Minister Karel Schwarzenberg told today's issue of the Austrian daily
Der Standar
The paper says the EU summit is to adopt a resolution urging the eight
countries, including the Czech Republic, that have not yet ratified
the treaty to speed up the process.
"It is highly important that all EU institutions resist the temptation
of exerting any pressure. This would be counter-productive. The
pressure is big anyway and we should not further increase it. We
therefore will not support such a resolution," Schwarzenberg told the
paper.
He recalled nevertheless that the Czech Republic must now wait for the
Czech Constitutional Court to say whether the treaty is in harmony
with the Czech constitutional order, which is likely to last several
months.
Schwarzenberg said at a meeting of EU foreign ministers on Monday that
the Irish "no" to the treaty is not a reason for the ratification to
stop.
He told the paper that further steps should be taken only after the
situation calms down.
He said he did not want to make any guess about how the situation
would develop.
"However, I certainly do not want Europe without Ireland. Ireland must
decide on how it would further proceed and we should give it the time.
To exert pressure would be the most stupid thing we could do,"
Schwarzenberg told Der Standard.
Dr. Barry Worthington
Are you surprised that people like Klaus and Kaczynski are opposed to
the Treaty? Klaus is an American educated free-market airhead, largely
responsible for the break up of his native country, and despised by a
large number, probably the majority, of Czechs. Kaczynski is a
bigotted right wing idiot, whose views are despised and rejected my
most of the Polish population, including his premier, Donald Tusk. But
I note that this is from the Times....it was once a decent paper.
Dr. Barry Worthington
Dr Quite
49fc-af14-e...@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com:
> Klaus is [...] largely
> responsible for the break up of his native country,
Coupla questions:
I'm wondering why you isolate Klaus as responsible for the divorce, and
minimise the contribution of Havel and public opinion?
You appear to see the divorce as a negative - am I correct, and would you
elaborate?
thomsen
Who among the Eurosceptics respects the will of a majority of
countries to go ahead with Lisbon? Didn't the Spanish vote "yes" even
for the proposed constitution? Wasn't stopping ratification after the
French and Dutch an act of arrogance considering all those who wanted
the constitution, and who IMHO constitute a european majority? The
fact is that all those demagogues who so loudly advocate "democratic"
referendums in fact do want to sink any project of closer cooperation
that necessarily would have to abolish the right of veto on many
subjects, in order to replace it by qualified majorities. There isn't
hardly any chance of 27 independent referendums on any matter to turn
out an overall "yes" vote. Sticking to this sort of procedure in fact
simply means "no" on any matter.
The only way out of the impasse is to enlargen the right of the EU
parliament, i.e. a more democratic union, any qualified majority vote
wherever possible. I.e. the heart of the constitution project and of
the Lisbon project.
Funnily enough, those "no"-voters who reject the Lisbon treaty for too
much free-trade and neo-liberalism (the French) and those who want
more free-trade and neo-liberalism (the British) only agree on one
thing: that the present situation - the Nice treaty - is bad, and that
they therefore want to stick to it.
For those people who think the EU is too tight a union, there's a
classical solution:
Revive the European Free Trade Association EFTA, and let everybody who
is content with that but hates further integration (Britain? Czech
Republic? Poland?) just get out of the European Union. EFTA and EU
then may well have a free-trade arrangement, so that no economic harm
would be done.
Switzerland, Norway, and Greenland have chosen not to join the EU,
without any problem. Also, some EU members have chosen not to adopt
the Euro, or not to join the Schengen agreement.
It's the classical "coalition of the willing" thing. :-)))
After all, and contrary to some British tabloids, the EU is not the
Soviet Union: nobody will hinder any country to leave it. Of course,
there will be a tradeback: those staying out cannot claim any say on
inner-EU matters ... and that actually means a loss of overall
political weight. Well, there is no free lunch.
Regards,
A.
Dr. Barry Worthington
> "Dr. Barry Worthington" <sh...@abertay.ac.uk> wrote in news:48d0714b-5ce2-
>
> > Klaus is [...] largely
> > responsible for the break up of his native country,
>
> Coupla questions:
>
> I'm wondering why you isolate Klaus as responsible for the divorce, and
> minimise the contribution of Havel and public opinion?
>
> You appear to see the divorce as a negative - am I correct, and would you
> elaborate?
The so-called 'Velvet Divorce' was engineered by two men - Vaclav
Klaus and Vladimir Meciar. I am not aware that Vaclav Havel played any
role in the break up of Czechoslovakia; indeed, he seems to have
wanted to retain the Federation. He hated Klaus's policies, referring
to them as 'gangster capitalism'.
The politcal ambitions of Meciar are a matter of public record. He has
the principal instigator of Slovak independence, largely because it
would give him a free hand in what he increasingly regarded as his
personal political fief. Klaus went along with this, as it is thought
that he regarded Slovakia as conservative, backward, and a haven of
Soviet era 'rust belt' industries that might create obstacles to his
intended programme of neo-conservative reforms.
The Czech and Slovak peoples can, of course, do as they please, but is
clear that many of them, perhaps the majority, didn't want the split
at the time.
Dr. Barry Worthington
global...@yahoo.ca
wrote:
I've noticed the omnicient air of your opinions on this topic, Barry.
What is your doctorate in?
And what do you teach? "Tourism", isn't it?
And your self-professed leanings are toward "socialism", correct?
So these are just "opinions", right, not (as one might presume from
their tone, and your flaunting of your 'doctorate") judgements handed
down from Mount Olympus?
Dr. Barry Worthington
Really? I make no claim to omniscience, but I do like to think that I
know what I am talking about.
>
> What is your doctorate in?
The role of the service sector, particularly tourism, in post-
communist economic transition in Estonia. I have a research interest
in the former communist bloc in Eastern Europe. I publish in learned
journals from time to time.
>
> And what do you teach? "Tourism", isn't it?
You almost said that with a sneer. I lecture on tourism at a Scottish
university. Do you have a problem with that?
>
> And your self-professed leanings are toward "socialism", correct?
Indeed. Again, is this a problem?
>
> So these are just "opinions", right, not (as one might presume from
> their tone, and your flaunting of your 'doctorate") judgements handed
> down from Mount Olympus?
I would assume that most of what is written on this n.g. are opinions.
But I could back up my assertions with citations if I wished.
Why are you so hostile? What is your problem?
Dr. Barry Worthington
- Hide quoted text -
global...@yahoo.ca
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I'm not "hostile", Dr. Barry.
I merely wondered what credentials you had for "sneering" (to use your
own term) at the Czech and Slovak leadership (with the ocassional side-
swipe at the President of Poland) when their own poeple seem to be
perfectly happy with them.
I rather suspect that if they'd come forward to grovel at the feet of
the EUSSR elite who are trying to undemocratically ram this treaty
down the throats of Europe's citizens (I notice you don't seem to deal
with *that* aspect much), you'd be effusive in your praise of them.
'Socialism', the bedrock of the whole Marxist-inspired plan for the EU
Superstate , is exemplified in Gordon Brown, and unelected neo-
dictator with apparent identity issues, who finds the voice of the
'uninformed' electorate a hindrance. I certainly thought it might be
honest of you to openly declare your preference for this type of
governance, since you *are* a self-described socialist.
Seeng the Baltics from the back of a bus, and writing on "tourism" and
"the service sector" in "learned journals", doesn't automatically make
more of an expert on Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia than the
electorates there which voted their governing parties and leadership
into power. So, "doctorate" or not, your scathing comments on them are
merely "hostile" (and not expert) opinions, as I'm glad to see that
you yourself now confess. I would rather have thought that your
"research interest" in the "former communist bloc" would have been
raising red flags for you with regard to the forming socialist EU bloc
- but ideology easily wears blinkers.
If you think that the uber-elite care about, or make a your
distinction between, 'right' and 'left' parties, you need to go and
read Professor Carroll Quigley's "TRAGEDY AND HOPE". They finance both
sides today, and both wings merely offer different roadmaps which
ultimately end up at the same anti-democratic destination. The uber-
elite do have *some* preference for Marxism/socialism because that
ideology corrals and controls its people more efficiently, but they've
been happy to back Nazism in the past for the same reason. Again,
that's a lesson I would have thought you'd already learned from your
study of communist East Europe and from both the ideological roots of
the EU's main 'fathers' and from the controlling 'stranglehold' it
seeks to exert today by its ever-increasing regulations and its
increasing centralization of power into fewer and fewer hands.
As for you prominently-featured 'doctorate', "it enables me to indulge
in a little vanity on the internet" you gave written elswhere.
Harmless enough, as long as people take it at that value.
Dr Quite
Thanks for your answer.
Dr. Barry Worthington
You think so? Try talking to them sometime.....
>
> I rather suspect that if they'd come forward to grovel at the feet of
> the EUSSR elite who are trying to undemocratically ram this treaty
> down the throats of Europe's citizens (I notice you don't seem to deal
> with *that* aspect much), you'd be effusive in your praise of them.
Well, I think that you'll find that most Czechs, Slovaks, and Poles
are very pro EU for political and economic reasons.
> 'Socialism', the bedrock of the whole Marxist-inspired plan for the EU
> Superstate , is exemplified in Gordon Brown, and unelected neo-
> dictator with apparent identity issues, who finds the voice of the
> 'uninformed' electorate a hindrance. I certainly thought it might be
> honest of you to openly declare your preference for this type of
> governance, since you *are* a self-described socialist.
I'm sorry, but you are starting to sound like a nutter....
>
> Seeng the Baltics from the back of a bus,
I have actually lived for a period in the Baltics.......
>and writing on "tourism" and
> "the service sector" in "learned journals", doesn't automatically make
> more of an expert on Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia than the
> electorates there which voted their governing parties and leadership
> into power.
My views are based upon my personal knowledge and experience of these
countries and my research. I would think that they are as good as
anyone else's. What, by the way, is your experience of this part of
Europe?
Political opinion in these countries is changing. Klaus has been
involved in corruption scandals, Meciar is past history, and Kacynskis
brother, together with his odious policies, were thrown out at the
last Polish election.
>So, "doctorate" or not, your scathing comments on them are
> merely "hostile" (and not expert) opinions, as I'm glad to see that
> you yourself now confess.
What am I supposed to have confessed? And may I ask which 'experts'
inform your views on this topic?
> I would rather have thought that your
> "research interest" in the "former communist bloc" would have been
> raising red flags for you with regard to the forming socialist EU bloc
> - but ideology easily wears blinkers.
You are being rather silly.....
>
> If you think that the uber-elite care about, or make a your
> distinction between, 'right' and 'left' parties, you need to go and
> read Professor Carroll Quigley's "TRAGEDY AND HOPE".
Not a book, I think, that deals with this topic....
>They finance both
> sides today, and both wings merely offer different roadmaps which
> ultimately end up at the same anti-democratic destination. The uber-
> elite do have *some* preference for Marxism/socialism because that
> ideology corrals and controls its people more efficiently, but they've
> been happy to back Nazism in the past for the same reason. Again,
> that's a lesson I would have thought you'd already learned from your
> study of communist East Europe and from both the ideological roots of
> the EU's main 'fathers' and from the controlling 'stranglehold' it
> seeks to exert today by its ever-increasing regulations and its
> increasing centralization of power into fewer and fewer hands.
This is just a rant, I'm afraid....
>
> As for you prominently-featured 'doctorate', "it enables me to indulge
> in a little vanity on the internet" you gave written elswhere.
> Harmless enough, as long as people take it at that value.
But you are the only one making an issue out of it!
Toodle pip!
global...@yahoo.ca
Well, you've certainly managed to confirm my opinion of you.
An 'academic' who employs words like 'rant' and 'nutter' when he has
his ideological biases questioned is certainly no intellectual!
And I definitely withdraw my recommendation that you read Professor
Carroll Quigley's "TRAGEDY AND HOPE". He was a giant among scholars
who was actually intimately involved with these shadowy elite groups,
until he saw the error of his ways at the end of his life. Trying to
understand a seminal work of that stature would be an exercise in
frustration for you. You'd just find it "a rant", as you probably
would his equally seminal "The Anglo-American Establishment".
But, hey, he was only a respected professor in the Edmund A. Walsh
School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University, and a consultant
to the U.S. Department of Defense, the U.S. Navy, the Smithsonian
Institution, and the Select Committee on Astronautics and Space
Exploration, while *you* are the Tourism Lecturer at Abertay
University, Dundee. What could *he * know?
If *you* say his work on the background of international relations and
how they are actually managed is "not relevant" then who could
question such an impregnable diktat, all the more 'authoritative'
because you've obviously not read it.
Are they slipping "doctorates" into cereal boxes in the UK, nowadays?
Go back to teaching bored students about "tourism" and to "exercising
your vanity" by attaching your "doctorate" as an imprimatur on your
half-baked leftist 'analyses' on the web. I'll find them just as
amusing as before.
But no more than I'd expect from a grown man who, according to his
profile, still delights in playing with trains.
"Toodle pip", to you, too.
ourfreedom...@lycos.com
I found these extremely interesting quotes from Professor Carroll
Quigley elsewhere on the web:
"There does exist, and has existed for a generation, an international
Anglophile network which operates, to some extent, in the way the
radical Right believes the Communists act. In fact, this network,
which we may identify as the Round Table Groups, has no aversion to
cooperating with the Communists, or any other groups, and frequently
does so. I know of the operations of this network because I have
studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the
early 1960's, to examine its papers and secret records. I have no
aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life,
been close to it and to many of its instruments. I have objected, both
in the past and recently, to a few of its policies (notably to its
belief that England was an Atlantic rather than a European Power and
must be allied, or even federated, with the United States and must
remain isolated from Europe), but in general my chief difference of
opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in
history is significant enough to be known." (p. 950}
"The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and
policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a
foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers.
Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the
American people can "throw the rascals out" at any election without
leading to any profound or extreme shifts in policy. " {p. 1247}
"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim,
nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in
private hands able to dominate the political system of each country
and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be
controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world
acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private
meetings and conferences.
The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International
Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled
by the world's central banks which were themselves private
corporations. Each central bank sought to dominate its government by
its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign
exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country,
and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic
rewards in the business world."
- Prof. Carrol Quigley, "Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in
Our Time"
I'm reminded of some other quotes relevant to this topic concerning
the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), which Quigley deals with in
his book and which has an influential English sister-organization in
the Royal Institute of International Affairs at Chatham House,
London.
For example, the stern and principled Admiral Chester Ward, former CFR
member and Judge Advocate General of the U.S. Navy, came out from the
organization and testified against it. He revealed that:
"The Objective of the influential majority of members of CFR has not
changed since its founding in 1922, more than 50 years ago. In the
50th anniversary issue of Foreign Affairs [the official quarterly
publication of the CFR], the first and leading article was written by
CFR member Kingman Brewster, Jr., entitled -"Reflections on Our
National Purpose." He did not back away from defining it: our national
purpose should be to abolish our nationality. Indeed, he pulled out
all the emotional stops in a hardsell for global government. He
described our "Vietnam-seared generation" as being" far from America
Firsters " an expression meant as a patronizing sop to our young
people. in the entire CFR lexicon, there is no term of revulsion
carrying a meaning so deep as 'America First'..."
And
"Although, from the inside, CFR is certainly not the monolith that
some members and most non members consider it, this lust to surrender
the sovereignty and independence of the United States is pervasive
throughout most of the membership, and particularly in the leadership
of the several divergent cliques ...."
And...
"Once the ruling members of the CFR shadow government have decided
that the U.S. Government should adopt a particular policy, the very
substantial research facilities of (the) CFR are put to work to
develop arguments, intellectual and emotional, to support the new
policy, and to confound and discredit, intellectually and politically,
any opposition."
"Abolish our nationality"..."surrender (our) sovereignty and
independence"...do these terms sound familiar? They should: the
elitist CFR and the secretive Bilderberg Group, which is hotly pushing
European integration, have interlocking memberships.
Dr. Barry Worthington
You would be better employed answering the points that I make......
>
> An 'academic' who employs words like 'rant' and 'nutter' when he has
> his ideological biases questioned is certainly no intellectual!
I speak as I find. It has nothing to do with my opinions, ideological
or otherwise. As far as I am concerned, you write rants, largely
composed of political gibberish. Sorry, but I can only speak as I
find.
>
> And I definitely withdraw my recommendation that you read Professor
> Carroll Quigley's "TRAGEDY AND HOPE". He was a giant among scholars
> who was actually intimately involved with these shadowy elite groups,
> until he saw the error of his ways at the end of his life. Trying to
> understand a seminal work of that stature would be an exercise in
> frustration for you. You'd just find it "a rant", as you probably
> would his equally seminal "The Anglo-American Establishment".
It has really nothing to do with my assertions relating to Klaus,
Meciar, and Kaczinsky.
>
> But, hey, he was only a respected professor in the Edmund A. Walsh
> School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University, and a consultant
> to the U.S. Department of Defense, the U.S. Navy, the Smithsonian
> Institution, and the Select Committee on Astronautics and Space
> Exploration, while *you* are the Tourism Lecturer at Abertay
> University, Dundee. What could *he * know?
I'm sure that the august gentleman is an expert in his field, but his
writings are not relevent in this case. I may be a tourism lecturer
(albeit with a history degree), but my postings are usually on topic.
>
> If *you* say his work on the background of international relations and
> how they are actually managed is "not relevant" then who could
> question such an impregnable diktat, all the more 'authoritative'
> because you've obviously not read it.
Not relevant in this case. I'm not criticising him. I'm criticising
you for citing something that is irrelevant....
>
> Are they slipping "doctorates" into cereal boxes in the UK, nowadays?
>
> Go back to teaching bored students about "tourism" and to "exercising
> your vanity" by attaching your "doctorate" as an imprimatur on your
> half-baked leftist 'analyses' on the web. I'll find them just as
> amusing as before.
But I'm a rather smug and condescending Doctor of Philosophy....and
you are?
>
> But no more than I'd expect from a grown man who, according to his
> profile, still delights in playing with trains.
Not exactly.......I operate real full size trains. They carry
passengers, and give people pleasure. I do something useful with my
spare time. Do you?
Now, as we say in the groves of academie, please bugger off!
Dr. Barry Worthington
>
> "Toodle pip", to you, too.- Hide quoted text -
global...@yahoo.ca
wrote:
Hilarious!
I see that your responses are cloaked in the usual condescending and
impenetrable academic gobblegook, and presented in the supercilious
manner of one marking a term paper.
This is a guarantee of your further promotion in academia - if you
can't be understood and adroitly dodge the issues as "not relevant" or
"off topic", no one will ever be able to produce anything against you
when then ultimately come up for tenure as a fully-fledged "Professor
of Tourism".
Then you'll be able to suck on the academic tax teat all day long and
view the world through the rosy tint of socialist delusion as you try
to persuade yourself that your students can't really see what a
doddering old ideologue you've become, enlivening their classes on
"Charabanc Tours In Pre-War Poland" with lively snatches from Marx,
Engels and your Greatest Internet Postings!
Of course, I'm sure that your more astute colleagues, who also read
Usenet, are quietly laughing their heads off right now at the "Little
Train Driver That Couldn't'.
You get an F-minus for this attempt.
Which doctorate-mill in Manchester did you say you got your "Doctorate
in Tourism" from?
kujebak
by their balls
in the draught.
(Popular Czech aphorism)
> Yesterday Jos� Manuel Barroso, the European Commission President,
Dr. Barry Worthington
> On Jun 20, 2:25 pm, "Dr. Barry Worthington" <sh...@abertay.ac.uk>
> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 20, 5:02 pm, globalchec...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>
> Hilarious!
>
> I see that your responses are cloaked in the usual condescending and
> impenetrable academic gobblegook, and presented in the supercilious
> manner of one marking a term paper.
Brings back some bad memories, does it?
>
> This is a guarantee of your further promotion in academia - if you
> can't be understood and adroitly dodge the issues as "not relevant" or
> "off topic", no one will ever be able to produce anything against you
> when then ultimately come up for tenure as a fully-fledged "Professor
> of Tourism".
I have no ambitions in that direction...I do more than enough
administration as a Programme Tutor.
>
> Then you'll be able to suck on the academic tax teat all day long and
> view the world through the rosy tint of socialist delusion as you try
> to persuade yourself that your students can't really see what a
> doddering old ideologue you've become,
You presume to know about my students as well as myself? (A person
that you have never met.) What a sad little man you are!
>enlivening their classes on
> "Charabanc Tours In Pre-War Poland"
As a matter of fact, I cllect pre 1914 Baedekers.....but I don't touch
upon the history of tourism much in my teaching.
>with lively snatches from Marx,
> Engels and your Greatest Internet Postings!
Yes, I consider myself a Marxist in many ways....as do many
Christians. Actually, I'm in the camp of the European Social
Democrats. Do you know what that means?
>
> Of course, I'm sure that your more astute colleagues, who also read
> Usenet, are quietly laughing their heads off right now at the "Little
> Train Driver That Couldn't'.
The ones who cite me in their own research?
>
> You get an F-minus for this attempt.
From you!!!!!!!!!!! Sorry, but I find that rather funny......
>
> Which doctorate-mill in Manchester did you say you got your "Doctorate
> in Tourism" from?
I would pull your finger out and look at my website if I were you.
Unlike your good self, I am totally transparent as far as the web is
concerned....
global...@yahoo.ca
Finally, some REAL 'transparency'!
Just another 'ivory tower' communist safely esconced in academia...
Dr. Barry Worthington
Yes....it must really get you annoyed (snicker...)........
Toodle pip!
Dr. Barry Worthington
- Hide quoted text -
global...@yahoo.ca
wrote:
>
>
> Toodle pip!
>
> Dr. Barry Worthington
>
you.
I note, for example, that your exact wording was: "Yes, I consider
Christians."
intellectual and are only a lowly academic stipend-slave, but I would
have thought that even *you* might have been able to sense a clear
contradiction between these two world views.
The New Terstament definitively states: "1.1. Ἐν ἀρχῃ ἠν ὁ λογος και ὁ
λογος ἠν προς τον θεον, και θεος ἠν ὁ λογος. 1.2. οὑτος ἠν ἐν αρχῃ
προς τον θεον. 1.3. παντα δι᾽ αὐτου ἐγενετο, και χωρις αὐτου ἐγενετο
οὐδε ἑν. ὁ γεγονεν" - ΚΑΤΑ ΙΩΑΝΝΗΝ.
Karl Marx, on the other hand, in the introduction to his book
'Contribution To Critique Of Hegel's Philosophy of Right', states:
"Die Religion ... ist das Opium des Volkes".
Marxism, as a result, is defiantly atheistic.
How can you therefore be a "Christian Marxist"? Unless, of course,
your 'Christianity' exists independently of the New Testament (you
have *heard* of the New Testament, haven't you? It's been in print for
a few years now)
I look forward with interest to seeing your reconciliation of these
two irreconcilable opposites.
Try to avoid employing academic gobble-de-gook or supercilious
silliness in your answer.
Dr. Barry Worthington
> On Jun 22, 11:20 am, "Dr. Barry Worthington" <sh...@abertay.ac.uk>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Yes....it must really get you annoyed (snicker...)........
>
> > Toodle pip!
>
> > Dr. Barry Worthington
>
> No, not at all. It excites more of a feeling of wondering pity for
> you.
>
> I note, for example, that your exact wording was: "Yes, I consider
> myself a Marxist in many ways....as do many
> Christians."
>
> I find this frankly astonishing.
Why?
>Now, I know that you are not an
> intellectual and are only a lowly academic stipend-slave, but I would
> have thought that even *you* might have been able to sense a clear
> contradiction between these two world views.
>
> The New Terstament definitively states: "1.1. Ἐν ἀρχῃ ἠν ὁ λογος και ὁ
> λογος ἠν προς τον θεον, και θεος ἠν ὁ λογος. 1.2. οὑτος ἠν ἐν αρχῃ
> προς τον θεον. 1.3. παντα δι᾽ αὐτου ἐγενετο, και χωρις αὐτου ἐγενετο
> οὐδε ἑν. ὁ γεγονεν" - ΚΑΤΑ ΙΩΑΝΝΗΝ.
>
> Karl Marx, on the other hand, in the introduction to his book
> 'Contribution To Critique Of Hegel's Philosophy of Right', states:
> "Die Religion ... ist das Opium des Volkes".
Yes, he was talking about religion. In my (protestant) tradition,
there is a world of difference between personal spirituality and
organised religion.
>
> Marxism, as a result, is defiantly atheistic.
Not all of it.....
>
> How can you therefore be a "Christian Marxist"?
Many have quite happily held this position.
>Unless, of course,
> your 'Christianity' exists independently of the New Testament (you
> have *heard* of the New Testament, haven't you? It's been in print for
> a few years now)
All Christianity exists independently of the New Testament. Scripture
alone is not a means to salvation (as St. Paul pointed out in Romans).
> I look forward with interest to seeing your reconciliation of these
> two irreconcilable opposites.
There are, at first sight, two contradictory points of view. The first
suggests that human nature may be transformed through alterations in a
human being's productive relationships. The other that an individual
can be transformed through a spiritual relationship with God, centred
on the person of Jesus Christ. Can you now see some similarities?
Dr. Barry Worthington
Whileyouslept
wrote:
<snip>
I'm sad to see that you actually believe your own sophistry.
The conterxt of Marx's statement (and of all of his atheistic 'obita
dicta' on these matters) make it perfectly clear that he was not
talking about 'religion' per se, but about the reality and existence
of God. He denied that God existed. As a consequence, Marxists in
every time and place have been militant atheists. You cannot get good
fruit from a bad tree, the roots of which themselves are poisonous, as
time and experience have amply proveb of Marxism.
Your bald statement that "All Christianity exists independently of the
New Testament. Scripture alone is not a means to salvation." is
utterly ludicrous.And you quote St. Paul to justify this?
St. Paul's own statements on the matter, which carry somewhat more
weight than your opinion of what he should have said, are "τῇ γὰρ
χάριτί ἐστε σεσῳσμένοι διὰ πίστεως· καὶ τοῦτο οὐκ ἐξ ὑμῶν, θεοῦ τὸ
δῶρον·" - "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of
yourselves: it is the gift of God" ( Ephesians 2:8) and "ἄρα ἡ πίστις
ἐξ ἀκοῆς, ἡ δὲ ἀκοὴ διὰ ῥήματος χριστοῦ" - "So then faith cometh by
hearing, and hearing by the word of God." (Romans 10:17).
To make it perfectly straightforward: One is saved through
"grace" (the free, unmerited gift of God, not by "works", or
by*modified behaviour"), through "faith", which comes by "hearing, and
hearing by the word of God" (Scripture heard or read).
Obviously, St. Paul can hardly be said therefore to be teaching, as
you are affirming with staggering ignorance, that "All Christianity
tradition" which you say that you ahere to, raise the battle cry of
"Sola Scriptura" during the Reformation. It was precisely to affirm
these very points - the primacy of Scripture and of justification by
faith.
You write: "There are, at first sight, two contradictory points of
alterations in a human being's productive relationships. The other
that an individual can be transformed through a spiritual relationship
with God, centred on the person of Jesus Christ. Can you now see some
similarities?"
be "some similarities" berween an atheistic creed which "suggests that
centred on the person of Jesus Christ", which can only be
supernaturally entered into by faith, based on Scripture, and which is
accompanied by the transforming power of the Holy Spirit (the result
of which, by this "new birth", is truly a "new nature")? They are
polar opposites, and they remain "two contradictory points of view"
incapable of being merged.
Consideration of the following New Testament passages might clarify
for you what little weight God gives to Mrxist assertions that man can
"4.1 παῦλος δοῦλος χριστοῦ ἰησοῦ, κλητὸς ἀπόστολος, ἀφωρισμένος εἰς
εὐαγγέλιον θεοῦ, 4.2 ὃ προεπηγγείλατο διὰ τῶν προφητῶν αὐτοῦ ἐν
γραφαῖς ἁγίαις, 4.3 περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ τοῦ γενομένου ἐκ σπέρματος
δαυὶδ κατὰ σάρκα, 4.4 τοῦ ὁρισθέντος υἱοῦ θεοῦ ἐν δυνάμει κατὰ πνεῦμα
ἁγιωσύνης ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν, ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν, 4.5 δι᾽
οὖ ἐλάβομεν χάριν καὶ ἀποστολὴν εἰς ὑπακοὴν πίστεως ἐν πᾶσιν τοῖς
ἔθνεσιν ὑπὲρ τοῦ ὀνόματος αὐτοῦ, 4.6 ἐν οἷς ἐστε καὶ ὑμεῖς κλητοὶ
ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ" - "1 What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as
pertaining to the flesh, hath found? 2 For if Abraham were justified
by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. 3 For what
saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him
for righteousness. 4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not
reckoned of grace, but of debt. 5 But to him that worketh not, but
believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for
righteousness. 6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the
man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works..." (Romans
4:1-6)
"οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων, ἵνα μή τις καυχήσηται." - "Not of works, lest any man
should boast." (Ephesians 2:9)
"οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων τῶν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ ἃ ἐποιήσαμεν ἡμεῖς ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὸ αὐτοῦ
ἔλεος ἔσωσεν ἡμᾶς διὰ λουτροῦ παλιγγενεσίας καὶ ἀνακαινώσεως πνεύματος
ἁγίου" - "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but
according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration,
and renewing of the Holy Ghost" - (Titus 3:5)
There is no room here for Marxism, nor any "similaries" with that
murderous and atheistic philosopy.
Your ignorance of the New Testament's most basic teachings on
salvation are truly appalling.
Is Professor Alexander Russell, the head of the Dundee Business School
in which you are a Lecturer, aware of your Marxist views?
global...@yahoo.ca
I think you'd have to agree that his essential soteriology is that of
a Marxist, and not of a Christian.
And since one's soteriology forms the basis for one's eschatology, I'm
sure that MI5 (which monitor these newsgroups through their huge new
London 'trawling centre') have probably been updating his file
assiduously and moving him up their 'watch list'.
Good job, too. The last thing we need is another academic who looks
forward to the "ultimate triumph of Marxism".
Whileyouslept
I didn't think you needed the help, knowing your background, but I
found the poisonous attempted mingling of St. Paul and Marxism too
much to stomach.
Perhaps the Apostle's Epistle to the Romans needs a little clearer
exegesis nowadays over in the UK.
I found the specious assertions he was presenting, and their
attribution to Paul, simply too ludicrous to let pass unchallenged.
I've always thought that John Redekop, who teaches Political Science
over at Trinity Western University, summed up the essential
differences between Marxism/socialism extremely well when he wrote:
"Despite the partial congruence, the areas of difference loom large.
Christians cannot concur with the fundamental assertion that fallen
human nature is basically good nor with the belief that it is
virtually perfectible by social engineering. Many Christians believe
that socialists fundamentally misread human nature. In its fallen
state it is not necessarily other-oriented or primarily concerned
about the common good of the community.
Christians also reject any implication that the working class is
morally better than other groups. Many Christians also assert that the
socialist prescription for societal improvement stifles individual
initiative and is therefore doomed to fail.
Christians do not locate the source of evil in economic exploitation
but in human rejection of God. They insist that fallen human nature
causes economic exploitation, not that economic exploitation causes
evil in human nature. Nor do Christians accept as correct the notion
that the proper and central study of human nature should focus on
economics.
While Christians acknowledge the existence of economic classes, they
do not accept the centrality of class structure nor the inevitability
of class conflict. Indeed, Christians and others point out that for
most people the idea of economic class does not take precedence in
self-identification. They note that in the great wars of the 20th
century, as in earlier times, the masses of people placed
identification with their country far above membership in supposed
transnational classes. For example, socialists in France and Great
Britain fought socialists in Germany.
Additionally, Christians reject the marginalization of the individual
and individual responsibility, the widespread policy discrimination in
favour of the working class, the great faith in big government and the
strong emphasis on central planning and government regulation.
Justification of virtually all strikes constitutes another problem.
Perhaps the greatest difference between typical socialist assertions,
at least in our time, and Christian teaching is the widespread
socialist rejection of the concept of soul, of the supernatural realm
and of the need for human salvation rooted in God. Socialists seem to
assume that all reality is material.
In short, while we can identify some important areas of ethical
commonality, Christianity and socialism explain evil differently,
postulate different solutions to human depravity and, in the main,
have different priorities and ideals."
Dr. Barry Worthington
> On Jun 23, 6:06 am, "Dr. Barry Worthington" <sh...@abertay.ac.uk>
> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> I'm sad to see that you actually believe your own sophistry.
>
> The conterxt of Marx's statement (and of all of his atheistic 'obita
> dicta' on these matters) make it perfectly clear that he was not
> talking about 'religion' per se, but about the reality and existence
> of God. He denied that God existed.
>As a consequence, Marxists in
> every time and place have been militant atheists.
have been, and continue to be, Marxists.
>You cannot get good
> fruit from a bad tree, the roots of which themselves are poisonous, as
> time and experience have amply proveb of Marxism.
>
> Your bald statement that "All Christianity exists independently of the
> New Testament. Scripture alone is not a means to salvation." is
> utterly ludicrous.And you quote St. Paul to justify this?
hypocritical Jew or Christian.
> St. Paul's own statements on the matter, which carry somewhat more
> weight than your opinion of what he should have said, are "τῇ γὰρ
> χάριτί ἐστε σεσῳσμένοι διὰ πίστεως· καὶ τοῦτο οὐκ ἐξ ὑμῶν, θεοῦ τὸ
> δῶρον·" - "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of
> yourselves: it is the gift of God" ( Ephesians 2:8)
>and "ἄρα ἡ πίστις
> ἐξ ἀκοῆς, ἡ δὲ ἀκοὴ διὰ ῥήματος χριστοῦ" - "So then faith cometh by
> hearing, and hearing by the word of God." (Romans 10:17).
> To make it perfectly straightforward: One is saved through
> "grace" (the free, unmerited gift of God, not by "works", or
> by*modified behaviour"), through "faith", which comes by "hearing, and
> hearing by the word of God" (Scripture heard or read).
scripture in Paul's day, just a variety of oral tradition and
teaching.
>
> Obviously, St. Paul can hardly be said therefore to be teaching, as
> you are affirming with staggering ignorance, that "All Christianity
> exists independently of the New Testament".
>
> For good reason did Martin Luther, the father of the "Protestant
> tradition" which you say that you ahere to, raise the battle cry of
> "Sola Scriptura" during the Reformation. It was precisely to affirm
> these very points - the primacy of Scripture and of justification by
> faith.
start of the relationship with God.
>
> You write: "There are, at first sight, two contradictory points of
> view. The first suggests that human nature may be transformed through
> alterations in a human being's productive relationships. The other
> that an individual can be transformed through a spiritual relationship
> with God, centred on the person of Jesus Christ. Can you now see some
> similarities?"
>
> Are you incapable of seeing your own illogicality here? How can there
> be "some similarities" berween an atheistic creed which "suggests that
> human nature may be transformed through alterations in a human being's
> productive relationships" and the "a spiritual relationship with God,
> centred on the person of Jesus Christ", which can only be
> supernaturally entered into by faith, based on Scripture, and which is
> accompanied by the transforming power of the Holy Spirit (the result
> of which, by this "new birth", is truly a "new nature")?
>They are
> polar opposites, and they remain "two contradictory points of view"
> incapable of being merged.
works is not necessarily associated with personality change. The
acceptance of Christ, and through Christ, God, is the start of a
personal relationship that will transform the believer's personality.
Now compare this to the transforming pwer of an alteration in human
productive relationships. Of course, one cannot compare the two in
importance, but you must admit that the concept is similar. Can you
see how some Christians can accomodate marxism into their mindset?
> Your ignorance of the New Testament's most basic teachings on
> salvation are truly appalling.
waste of time in your eyes....
>
> Is Professor Alexander Russell, the head of the Dundee Business School
> in which you are a Lecturer, aware of your Marxist views?
Dr. Barry Worthington
Dr. Barry Worthington
> - Show quoted text -
Goodbye,
Dr. Barry Worthington
Dr. Barry Worthington
Then give us the benefit of your wisdom on this matter....
>
> I found the specious assertions he was presenting, and their
> attribution to Paul, simply too ludicrous to let pass unchallenged.
Then challenge them!
>
> I've always thought that John Redekop, who teaches Political Science
> over at Trinity Western University,
I quote from the mission statement -
"The mission of Trinity Western University, as an arm of the Church,
is to develop godly Christian leaders: positive, goal-oriented
university graduates with thoroughly Christian minds; growing
disciples of Christ who glorify God through fulfilling the Great
Commission, serving God and people in the various marketplaces of
life."
Which seems fair enough, though as a Christian, I would still prefer
the secular institutions in which I was educated. But when I looked at
their core values, I came across this little gem:-
"We believe the Scriptures, both Old and New Testaments, to be the
inspired Word of God, without error in the original writings, the
complete revelation of His will for the salvation of men, and the
Divine and final authority for all Christian faith and life."
No thankyou! What was good enough for St. Paul, and good enough for
Christ himself (see the parable of the Good Samaritan), is good enough
for me!
>summed up the essential
> differences between Marxism/socialism extremely well when he wrote:
>
> "Despite the partial congruence, the areas of difference loom large.
> Christians cannot concur with the fundamental assertion that fallen
> human nature is basically good nor with the belief that it is
> virtually perfectible by social engineering.
Charge sheet of Captain Margery, the Anabaptist - "Item: that he doth
believe in the perfectability of man."
>Many Christians believe
> that socialists fundamentally misread human nature. In its fallen
> state it is not necessarily other-oriented or primarily concerned
> about the common good of the community.
So much for Rousseau......
>
> Christians also reject any implication that the working class is
> morally better than other groups. Many Christians also assert that the
> socialist prescription for societal improvement stifles individual
> initiative and is therefore doomed to fail.
Many Christians?
>
> Christians do not locate the source of evil in economic exploitation
> but in human rejection of God. They insist that fallen human nature
> causes economic exploitation, not that economic exploitation causes
> evil in human nature. Nor do Christians accept as correct the notion
> that the proper and central study of human nature should focus on
> economics.
Evil can exist in systems and the norms of society, and what they make
potentially good men do.
(Snip rest of diatribe.)
Dr. Barry Worthington
Whileyouslept
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
>>"So then faith cometh by
> > hearing, and hearing by the word of God." (Romans 10:17).
>
>"Only in scripture? Not through other revelation? "
Well, that just about says it all! "Why only through the Bible, why
not through Marx as well?" - is that what you meant?
Your theological underpinnings seem to be sand, sand, and more sand!
I'm sure that even you will recognize that allusion (Clue: you won't
find it in Marx).
>> Is Professor Alexander Russell, the head of the Dundee Business School
>> in which you are a Lecturer, aware of your Marxist views?
>
>I have no idea. But why would you ask such a question?
Because I'm seriously considering sending him a link to this thread.
global...@yahoo.ca
>
> - Show quoted text -
>> Is Professor Alexander Russell, the head of the Dundee Business School
>> in which you are a Lecturer, aware of your Marxist views?
>
>I have no idea. But why would you ask such a question?
"Because I'm seriously considering sending him a link to this thread."
You may find that, in this case, I've beaten you to it!
But, if you insist, his email is a.ru...@abertay.ac.uk
Whileyouslept
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
You wrote:
"We believe the Scriptures, both Old and New Testaments, to be the
inspired Word of God, without error in the original writings, the
complete revelation of His will for the salvation of men, and the
Divine and final authority for all Christian faith and life."
No thank you! What was good enough for St. Paul, and good enough for
Christ himself (see the parable of the Good Samaritan), is good
enough
for me!
You seem remarkably theologically confused. I see that you are now
also rejecting what forms the basis of all of the great Protestant
Confessions of Faith, as well, although you claim adherence to "the
Protestant tradition".
So, essentially, you are reducing the New Testament's teaching on
salvation to "the parable of the Good Samaritan"?
Perhaps the good Professor Alexander Russell will be able to
straighten you out on this, too (from the Westminster Shorter
Catechism, for example), as well as sharing his views on you
associating Marxism with the Dundee Business School, when he reads
through this thread.
Dr. Barry Worthington
If you decide to take this course of action, may I remind you that it
is not a Christian thing to do? And that you will also reveal to
anyone who reads this exchange exactly what sort of person you are....
Dr. Barry Worthington
global...@yahoo.ca
"Dr. Barry Worthington" <sh...@abertay.ac.uk>
>
<snip>
He wrote:
>
>"We believe the Scriptures, both Old and New Testaments, to be the
> inspired Word of God, without error in the original writings, the
> complete revelation of His will for the salvation of men, and the
> Divine and final authority for all Christian faith and life."
>
> No thank you! What was good enough for St. Paul, and good enough for
> Christ himself (see the parable of the Good Samaritan), is good
> enough for me!
>
You replied:
> You seem remarkably theologically confused. I see that you are now
> also rejecting what forms the basis of all of the great Protestant
> Confessions of Faith, as well, although you claim adherence to "the
> Protestant tradition".
>
> So, essentially, you are reducing the New Testament's teaching on
> salvation to "the parable of the Good Samaritan"?
>
> Perhaps the good Professor Alexander Russell will be able to
> straighten you out on this, too (from the Westminster Shorter
> Catechism, for example), as well as sharing his views on you
> associating Marxism with the Dundee Business School, when he reads
> through this thread.
Excellent! I wonder how he'll fare when he has to explain the
correlation between his Marxist views and his Business School teaching
position to a REAL academic?
Perhaps a copy of this thread should also be sent to Mrs Joyce
Mathers, Professor Alexander Russell's secretary? I'm sure the Head of
School will want to have it safely on file, too! Her email is
j.mathers at @abertay.ac.uk
I'd be more than happy to send a link to this thread to her, too, if
you wish. After all, Marxism is by nature revolutionary and anti-
capitalist and the School may want to advertise any of its staff who
hold these view as an additional inducement to local businesses to
support it!
Dr. Barry Worthington
I will repeat what I said to the other poster. Not only will it not be
a Christian thing to do, but it will tell the internet community what
kind of person you are....
Dr. Barry Worthington
Whileyouslept
I'm a little confused by your statement that this "would not be a
Christian thing to do".
I see absolutely nothing in the Parable of the Good Samaritan (which
you have magisterially stated is the sole definition of "Christianity"
for you) that says I shouldn't send an email that helps your boss and
your colleagues to understand you better!
Surely you can't have anything to hide from them?
Of course, if you could find a prohibition elsewhere in the inspired,
inerrant words of the New Testament and quote *it* to me as the only
inspired "rule of faith and practice", then I'd *have* to take notice
of *that*.
But then you'd be contradicting yourself.
Always assuming, of course, that your guiding citation reached me in
time to stop me sending such a link or in time for me to cancel it,
once sent.
global...@yahoo.ca
wrote:
>
> I will repeat what I said to the other poster. Not only will it not be
> a Christian thing to do, but it will tell the internet community what
> kind of person you are....
>
Well, Doctor, I couldn't phrase it better than he, when he replied to
you:
> I'm a little confused by your statement that this "would not be a
> Christian thing to do".
>
> I see absolutely nothing in the Parable of the Good Samaritan (which
> you have magisterially stated is the sole definition of "Christianity"
> for you) that says I shouldn't send an email that helps your boss and
> your colleagues to understand you better!
>
> Surely you can't have anything to hide from them?
>
> Of course, if you could find a prohibition elsewhere in the inspired,
> inerrant words of the New Testament and quote *it* to me as the only
> inspired "rule of faith and practice", then I'd *have* to take notice
> of *that*.
>
> But then you'd be contradicting yourself.
>
> Always assuming, of course, that your guiding citation reached me in
> time to stop me sending such a link or in time for me to cancel it,
> once sent.
I suppose I might be amenable to the same terms, thoigh I really don't
see why you are so eager to hide your Marxist light under a bushel.
In my case, you might need to depend on a fast email recall and
cancellation.
The clock is certainly ticking - will it be salvation or academic
Armageddon?